9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing activity of final products of the appellant (viz: lead, zinc or sulphuric acid) and hence the exemption claimed is not available. Proceeding initiated against appellant concluded in the original order dated 18.3.2011.The original authority denied the exemption and confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 25,56,798/-. He also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.12.2011 upheld the original order. Against this order, the appellants are before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. A.R. for Revenue. We have also perused appeal records and the written submissions. The admitted facts are that the appellants procured cement without payment of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive and untenable in the factual context of the usage of cement in present case. Apparently, the lower authorities held the view that once the zinc/ lead is manufactured, the treatment of effluent is nothing to do with such manufacture. Such view is factually and legally unsustainable. Without controlled disposal of hazardous effluent no manufacture of zinc is possible/permitted. Ignoring such a holistic view will be against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Corp. Ltd. 1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC). The Supreme Court was examining the availability of exemption under Notificatin No.187/61 CE to raw naphtha used in the manufacture of ammonia, which is available subject to the condition that such ammonia i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in the impugned order to distinguish the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is devoid of merit. We also note that identical set of facts were examined with reference to DTA manufacturing unit of the appellant for eligibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on cement. The Tribunal in Final Order No.A/52585 -52589/2015 dated 13.8.2015 held that cement usage for stabilization of hazardous waste. jarosite as toxic effluent at secured landfill is part and parcel of their manufacturing activity. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in appellants own case in Final order No.54037/2015 dated 21.12.2015. The ratio in Supreme Court s decision as above was also followed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. 2008 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
